Re: [OPE] replacement cost and historical cost (again)

From: Paul Bullock <>
Date: Fri Sep 04 2009 - 04:43:16 EDT

Jerry, thanks,

Yes that is the point I was making. We cannot simply see Marx's
statements/formulations as a series of concrete ( ie final as they actually
appear) steps, one interacting with or modifying the other. Rather he makes
a generalisation that is an abstraction from that day to day reality, but
captures its essence... ( that effort on his part being a 'great
discovery'), he then demonstrates how this 'essence' eventually comes to be
viewed by vulgar empricists/ the practical bourgeois / that operates on the
'surface' of the living world, by a series of modifications that take into
account the multiplicity of activity contained in the totality. In this way,
contrary to appearances, the law of value is shown nto continue to be the
central regulating force in human masterial activity despite the transition
from simpler commodity economies to the capitalist economy.

Thus in the case that is being discussed 'moving from B to A'.



----- Original Message -----
From: "GERALD LEVY" <>
To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <>
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 7:10 PM
Subject: FW: [OPE] replacement cost and historical cost (again)

> Sent mistakingly to Ian alone. Intended for list. / JL
>>>> I think one can say that the simple conception B allows us to
>>>> understand/ is
>>>> a step towards understanding/ that conception A is the dynamic reality,
>>>> ie
>>>> how the law of value is active day to day. It is a reflection of Marx's
>>>> method of 'reconstruction' of an understanding of reality, it is not a
>>>> question of using both in the sense that both are concretely true, but
>>>> that
>>>> that your B precedes A logically so that the law of value is shown to
>>>> work
>>>> itself out, ie that the law of value can be proved to exert an
>>>> historically
>>>> determinate role as long as current class relations continue as they
>>>> are.
>>> I think you are onto something here, in the sense that perhaps Marx
>>> also struggled with the precise meaning of labor-values, although
>>> perhaps you would favor looking for a consistent interpretation of
>>> this aspect of his theory. I do not know.
> Hi Ian:
> I guess I understood what Paul B meant somewhat differently. Rather than
> asserting
> that Marx 'struggled' with the meaning of value, I think he (PB) meant
> that
> the theory presented in Volume One was modified (i.e. developed,
> concretized)
> in Volume Three of _Capital_. The issue here - which I think
> Paul is pointing to - is methodological and concerns Marx's method of
> abstraction.
> But, I'll let PB speak for himself....
> In solidarity, jerry_______________________________________________
> ope mailing list

ope mailing list
Received on Fri Sep 4 04:45:55 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 30 2009 - 00:00:02 EDT